The owners are asking the players to make monetary concession after record profits while working under an old contract that was mainly crafted by the owners. More of the 1% being greedy pigs.

Bettman is doing his job well, a high priced

First of all it is record revenue not record profit. Second if you ignore the profits of the Leafs, the Rangers and the Canadian the rest of the league runs at a big loss. According to Forbes 18 out of 30 teams lost money during the 10/11 season.

First of all it is record revenue not record profit. Second if you ignore the profits of the Leafs, the Rangers and the Canadian the rest of the league runs at a big loss. According to Forbes 18 out of 30 teams lost money during the 10/11 season.

good point orrthebest, and here's the kicker with negotiations so far. if the players go down to 46%, those 12 teams making money now...make a lot more. those on the bubble, will creep into the black, and the bottom feeders, will remain there. those with the most to gain, are the ones already doing really well.It all comes down to this. are all 30 NHL teams, regardless where they're located "entitled" to make a profit? should the players be mandated to endure pay cut after pay cut until this happenns?

Is that a sensible business strategy? in what other business does that happen?

First of all it is record revenue not record profit. Second if you ignore the profits of the Leafs, the Rangers and the Canadian the rest of the league runs at a big loss. According to Forbes 18 out of 30 teams lost money during the 10/11 season.

good point orrthebest, and here's the kicker with negotiations so far. if the players go down to 46%, those 12 teams making money now...make a lot more. those on the bubble, will creep into the black, and the bottom feeders, will remain there. those with the most to gain, are the ones already doing really well.It all comes down to this. are all 30 NHL teams, regardless where they're located "entitled" to make a profit? should the players be mandated to endure pay cut after pay cut until this happenns?

Is that a sensible business strategy? in what other business does that happen?

the

there

Do you realize that the NHLPA were the one that offered the rollback during the last negotiations. The NHL has asked for a rollback a total of 1 time in their orginal offer this summer and that was a deal thet did not expect to be accepted.

First of all it is record revenue not record profit. Second if you ignore the profits of the Leafs, the Rangers and the Canadian the rest of the league runs at a big loss. According to Forbes 18 out of 30 teams lost money during the 10/11 season.

good point orrthebest, and here's the kicker with negotiations so far. if the players go down to 46%, those 12 teams making money now...make a lot more. those on the bubble, will creep into the black, and the bottom feeders, will remain there. those with the most to gain, are the ones already doing really well.It all comes down to this. are all 30 NHL teams, regardless where they're located "entitled" to make a profit? should the players be mandated to endure pay cut after pay cut until this happenns?

Is that a sensible business strategy? in what other business does that happen?

the

there

Do you realize that the NHLPA were the one that offered the rollback during the last negotiations. The NHL has asked for a rollback a total of 1 time in their orginal offer this summer and that was a deal thet did not expect to be accepted.

do you realize that the NHLPA were the one that offered the rollback during the last negotiations. The NHL has asked for a rollback a total of 1 time in their orginal offer this summer and that was a deal thet did not expect to be accepted.

I don't really understand. when "cost certainty" was instituted last time, didn't the players take a 20 something percent pay cut?. Aren't they being asked to take around 20% this time?

Professional athletes at the NHL level have a short window of opportunity to cash in on the talent and hard work.

Owners for the most part are not dependent on their ownership of major league franchises for their income. For some it's a hobby , a status symbol or in some cases a way to show losses against their other incomes. They're greedy and basically have a rich guy mentality that thinks that workers deserve as little as you can force them to take.

If it came right down to it, the owners could force the players to accept far, far less than this. Shut down the league for three years. The players don't have a right to as much as they can grab. They have a right to do something else if they don't like the pay scale as an NHL pro. Someone here posted that pro players in the Swiss A make about $40K a year plus perks. Say the perks are work $200K. They still don't make half of NHL minimum. Same is true in Sweden, Germany, Finland and in the KHL.

The talent and hard work = right to big payday just doesn't hold. It reminds me of every reality TV show ever where the contestants tell the judges/jury/chefs/monkeys/executives/Trump/bi-sexual groupie that they want it more than anyone else and they want it for the right reasons. That's great...now beat it.

If it came right down to it, the owners could force the players to accept far, far less than this. Shut down the league for three years. The players don't have a right to as much as they can grab. They have a right to do something else if they don't like the pay scale as an NHL pro. Someone here posted that pro players in the Swiss A make about $40K a year plus perks. Say the perks are work $200K. They still don't make half of NHL minimum. Same is true in Sweden, Germany, Finland and in the KHL.

The talent and hard work = right to big payday just doesn't hold. It reminds me of every reality TV show ever where the contestants tell the judges/jury/chefs/monkeys/executives/Trump/bi-sexual groupie that they want it more than anyone else and they want it for the right reasons. That's great...now beat it.

I agree. This isn't about "rights". Introducing that logic is silly. So is the notion that these poor souls only have a few years to cash in, or that those who own the business should be able to do whatever they want. You're absolutely correct in your previous 1% statement. Everyone here is rich....both sides. All of these peripheral arguments though...steer us away from the root issue.

The question is, which side is most reasonable. Who is "least greedy". What the league wants is a system that pretty much thwarts the whole supply and demand thing, yet, with the exception of the players...they still want to operate within that model. They are insisting on a base that most certainly will cause the same commotion when the next agreement expires. They're suggesting a fix...that doesn't fix anything. They are demanding a system that is unavailable in virtually every other business category in North America. "Profit Certainty". For those arguing any kind of "entitlement" argument from the players...chew on profit certainty for a moment.

The league is looking for a deal that will insulate themselves from pretty much any economic peril imaginable on the "expense" ledger while insisting on the freedom to capitalize on any "revenue possibility" thinkable. Not even the Government has it that good, let alone the rest of the business world.

Rather than attempt to "tweak" the agreement to levels from which there is precedent, the league decided to swing for the fence, go for the knockout, and shoot the moon all at once. Now, maybe even bigger than economics, both sides have to save face too.

And realistically...the league could not force the players to take "far, far less". A 3 year lockout would cost them way, way too much, plus, in the meantime a new league would emerge causing untold financial grief for everyone.

The question isn't whether there's greed involved, but which side is "most" greedy. Depending on the circumstance, the answer changes. Clearly, this time...to this point... it's the league. That can and probably will change as negotiations continue, but as of today, it's hardly debatable.

Sometimes I think there's some confusion about who's in competition here. Owners are in competition with eachother for wins, not money. The League, as a whole, is in competition for our disposible income.

This whole collective barganing proceedure is about trying to ensure that the league, as a whole, is competative with the other sports leagues, as well as other forms of entertainment. That means trying to protect the weaker members.

Of course, this should lead to significant profit sharing... but you can bet the 'have' owners will be reluctant to do that.

"Of course, this should lead to significant profit sharing... but you can bet the 'have' owners will be reluctant to do that."

Good point DRCC and what Fehr was trying to do with the NHLPA offer, get wider range of profit sharing to help for the struggling teams. Oh those poor Billionaires having to give up a few of their mistresses becuase the Bush tax cuts are long gone come January.

From David Shoalts:

"While the strategy of NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr and his associates can be seen as one of divide-and-conquer when it comes to pushing revenue sharing, it is hard to argue that it does not make more sense for a league that is perpetually trying to prop up as many as a dozen weak markets every year.

The most successful sports league in the world, the NFL, shares almost every penny that comes in among its teams. Major League Baseball, another outfit that pulls in far more money than the NHL, owes much of its prosperity to increased revenue sharing in a system designed in large part by Fehr when he was head of the baseball players' union."

Jacobs, Murray Edwards plus a few other owners just aren't going to allow it.